Glenn Beck: Who was against Slaughter rule in 2005?



Glenn Beck's American Revival


Glenn Beck's American Revival is a daylong event where you can find information, inspiration, and the preparation to help turn this country around...


 - Tickets now available!

GLENN: I want to play Robert Gibbs and the audio that happened yesterday. Who is asking him this question yesterday, Pat?

PAT: One of the reporters on at MS I mean I think NBC.

GLENN: NBC reporter.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Asked Robert Gibbs about the Slaughter rule which will be the way they pass healthcare without voting on it. So, in other words, you don't have to vote on it. You just pass this little Slaughter rule and it will it will say it's like we passed it. Now, I don't know for the life of me how anyone is dumb enough to think the American people aren't going to remember that and how these people are actually going to try to look you in the eye and say, oh, no, no, no, I didn't vote for that. I just voted for the Slaughter rule. No, I didn't vote for healthcare reform. I'm thinking about this and I hear Robert Gibbs and this exchange.

VOICE: Do you believe the Deem and Pass scenario constitutes an up or down vote?

GIBBS: I think that I think that you're going to ask people how they stand on healthcare. You're not going to ask them how they stand on Deem and Pass. You're going to have a vote count that constructs not the process for the rule but where you are on healthcare.

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop. Then why would you do Deem and Pass? Why would you do that? We're going to ask about healthcare, not Deem and Pass. Remember, first they wanted to do it by the the right way. First Barack Obama says, you know, there's no way you can do this with 51 votes because you won't be able to rule like that. You won't be able to rule like that, won't be able to govern like that. So, we can't do it where 51 votes. Well, they couldn't do it with 60. Now they're just trying to do it with 51 votes. They couldn't get 51 votes. So, then they decide, well, we'll just do reconciliation. We'll just we'll just pass it by the House. Well, no, no. Then that wouldn't work. So, then what? So, then they go from reconciliation to Deem and Pass, the Slaughter rule. But before they say that, they say we just want a straight up or down. We just want a straight or or down vote, yes or no. We just thumbs up, thumbs down. They can't get that. Deem and Pass. By hook or by crook, anyway they can and she pushes him on it.

Voice: up or down vote, you would be satisfied with this Deem and Pass bill?

GIBBS: I think that again, I think that again, I think there are many that would want to inflate this process into something that's different than the product.

VOICE: Pelosi said, and I'm quoting, I like it, this scenario, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.

GIBBS: I would ask for

VOICE: (Inaudible.)

GIBBS: I would ask one of her capable spokespeople on what she had to say.

VOICE: Okay. Wait all right. But would you say there seems to be some inconsistency between what she says and having an up or down vote?

GIBBS: (Inaudible.)

VOICE: Okay. Then real quickly do you would you agree that it exacerbates the perception that his is a dirty or underhanded process?

GIBBS: No, no. Of course not.

VOICE: And, now, scattered showers of journalism.

GLENN: Well, it was.

PAT: It was.

GLENN: Yeah. It was nice. It was somebody from NBC, too.

PAT: Savannah Guthrie is her name and for him to say, as you just went through the whole process of how they've been trying to get this thing passed and then for them to do this sleazy maneuver and claim that nobody cares about the process, it's just don't even worry about the process. The process isn't important. It's just whether or not we get this thing passed.

GLENN: We played the audio of Chuck Schumer yesterday. Can we play the audio again? Here's Chuck Schumer behind closed doors in a conference on you know, look. There's a lot of things that we can do and not just on this but, you know, sure, we need we need two thirds to be able to pass anything, you know, to change any of the rules in the Constitution but we've got some other ideas. Here he is.

SCHUMER: This is something that people have looked at (inaudible.) So, you can't just rush it out. You have to really study it carefully and that's what the hearing (inaudible) and the rules committee who has jurisdiction over what this is intended to. There have been some very interesting papers written that said that the Constitutional right, for instance, of the Senate to make its own rules supercedes the two thirds that you can't change the rules but only when Congress writes new rules at the beginning of each Congress, every two year period where we reorganize ourselves.

PAT: Wow.

SCHUMER: That's something we want to explore.

PAT: I'll bet. I'll bet.

GLENN: That's, by the way, exclusive audio, taped by the friend of the program. There's exclusive audio for you of we'll play by any rules that we want. Now, here's, here's where I want to go. I want you to listen to this. This is the fundamental transformation of America. This is it. This is it. The reason why this is hook or crook is because they've got to they will do whatever they can, because all of their power is here. It is in this bill. This is it. This is the moment of transformation.

Now, I ask you to do two things. First it you to answer does it make sense that they would pass this in way, shape, or form and they would blame it on the Republicans. They're not bribing the Republicans. I don't know if they know this, but Dennis Kucinich is not a republican. They're bribing the Democrats. There won't be a single republican voting for this bill and if there is, that republican will be voted out of office, guaranteed. So, this is a 100% democratic bill. The benefits don't start in until between 2014 and 2015. Your tax burdens and everything else begin immediately. So, how do they expect to be reelected?

Now, I guess the answer be can be, well, because they think we're stupid and maybe that's it. Maybe that's it. But I think it is more likely that this has so much power and control in it, they're not worried about elections. But if it is this important and it is going to tear this country in half, it is going to destroy healthcare. If it is truly this important and you truly believe in it, put your name on it; but they don't want to do that. Nancy Pelosi likes this idea because that way you don't have to have your name on it. Let me just read portions of the last part of the Declaration of Independence.

In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is, thus, marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of free people. Nor have we been wanting inattentions for our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend the unwarrantable justification of jurisdictions over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our immigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice. We have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow the use of these usurpations. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice. We, therefore, must denounce our separation, hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace, friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world, do in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, do solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent.

Now, when they write that it ought to be totally dissolved, that they now have all the power, these men, no different than the members of Congress now except maybe in honor and integrity and spine. They knew when they signed this it was not that they were going to be voted out of office when they signed this after they had done everything they could. When they signed this, they knew it would be a death warrant! We will hang together or we will hang separately, but we will hang. And one by one they put their name on it. John Hancock's signature is the size that he the is because he said he wanted the king to be able to see his name without putting his spectacles on. They knew it was a death warrant and this Congress is so unlike any Congress we have ever had. This Congress is so unlike our founders that they don't even want their name on healthcare! The first Congress, which was no different, it had its bad apples in it, it had its problems, they wrote, and in support of this declaration with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. What do you think they meant by protection? It wasn't SEIU they were worried about being protected from. It wasn't the unions that they thought would protect them. They were worried about their own life and they knew God would protect them, because they were living and doing moral and just things, out in the open, with their names on it. That's why they could, in the end, in the last line before their names, and in support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

youtu.be


BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on BlazeTV.com. Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.